Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies

(1)

Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies

Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara Specialist in Social Policy

January 30, 2018

Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL33975

(2)

Summary

The majority of young people in the United States grow up healthy and safe in their communities.

Most of those of school age live with parents who provide for their well-being, and they attend schools that prepare them for advanced education or vocational training and, ultimately, self- sufficiency. Many youth also receive assistance from their families during the transition to adulthood. During this period, young adults cycle between attending school, living independently, and staying with their families. A study from 2009 found that over 60% of young people ages 19 to 22 receive financial support from their parents, including help with paying bills (42%), tuition assistance (35%), providing personal vehicles (23%), and paying rent (21.5%). Even with this assistance, the current move from adolescence to adulthood has become longer and increasingly complex.

For vulnerable (or “at-risk”) youth populations, the transition to adulthood is further complicated by a number of challenges, including family conflict or abandonment and obstacles to securing employment that provides adequate wages and health insurance. These youth may be prone to outcomes that have negative consequences for their future development as responsible, self- sufficient adults. Risk outcomes include teenage parenthood; homelessness; drug abuse;

delinquency; physical and sexual abuse; and school dropout. Detachment from the labor market and school—or disconnectedness—may be the single strongest indicator that the transition to adulthood has not been made successfully.

The federal government has not adopted a single overarching federal policy or legislative vehicle that addresses the challenges vulnerable youth experience in adolescence or while making the transition to adulthood. Rather, federal youth policy today has evolved from multiple programs established in the early 20^th century and expanded in the years following the 1964 announcement of the War on Poverty. These programs are concentrated in six areas: workforce development, education, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, public health, and national and community service. They are intended to provide vulnerable youth with opportunities to develop skills to assist them in adulthood.

Despite the range of federal services and activities to assist disadvantaged youth, many of these programs have not developed into a coherent system of support. This is due in part to the administration of programs within several agencies and the lack of mechanisms to coordinate their activities. In response to concerns about the complex federal structure developed to assist vulnerable youth, Congress passed the Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act (P.L. 109- 365) in 2006. Though activities under the act were never funded, the Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs was formed in 2008 under Executive Order 13459 to carry out coordinating activities across multiple agencies that oversee youth programs. Separately, Congress has considered other legislation to improve the delivery of services to vulnerable youth and provide opportunities to these youth through policies with a “positive youth development” focus. The Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs characterizes positive youth development as a process that engages young people in positive pursuits that help them acquire and practice the skills, attitudes, and behaviors that they will need to become successful adults.

In addition to the Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs, the executive branch has established working groups and initiatives to coordinate supports for youth. The Department of Justice has carried out the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention since the 1970s to coordinate federal policies on youth involved in the juvenile justice system.

More recently, the Obama and Trump Administrations have carried out the Performance Partnership Pilots (P3) initiative to coordinate funding across selected agencies to support local communities in serving vulnerable youth.

(3)

Tables

Table 1. Duties of the Federal Youth Development Council, by Goal ... 28

Table A-1. Federal Programs for Vulnerable Youth ... 37 Table A-2. Relevant CRS Reports and Analyst Contact Information ... 60

Appendixes

Appendix. Federal Youth Programs and Relevant CRS Reports and Experts ... 37

Contacts

Author Contact Information ... 63

(5)

Introduction

Congress has long been concerned about the well-being of youth. The nation’s future depends on young people today to leave school prepared for college or the workplace and to begin to make positive contributions to society. Some youth, however, face barriers to becoming contributing taxpayers, workers, and participants in civic life. These youth have characteristics or experiences that put them at risk of developing problem behaviors and outcomes that have the potential to harm their community, themselves, or both. Poor outcomes often develop in home and neighborhood environments that do not provide youth with adequate economic and emotional supports. Groups of vulnerable (or “at-risk”) youth include emancipating foster youth, runaway and homeless youth, and youth involved in the juvenile justice system, among others. Like all youth, vulnerable youth face a difficult transition to adulthood; however, their transition is further complicated by a number of challenges, including family conflict and obstacles to securing employment that provides adequate wages, health insurance, and potential for upward mobility.

The federal government has not adopted a single overarching federal policy or legislative vehicle that addresses the challenges at-risk youth experience in adolescence or while making the transition to adulthood. Rather, federal youth policy today has evolved from multiple programs established in the early 20^th century and expanded through Great Society initiatives. These programs, concentrated in six areas—workforce development, education, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, public health, and national and community service—

provide vulnerable youth with opportunities to develop skills that will assist them in adulthood.

Despite the range of federal services and activities for vulnerable youth, many of the programs have not been developed into a coordinated system of support. In response, federal policymakers have periodically undertaken efforts to develop a comprehensive federal policy around youth.

Congress has passed legislation (the Tom Osborne Federal Youth Coordination Act, P.L. 109-365) that authorizes the federal government to establish a youth council to improve coordination of federal programs serving youth. The youth council has not been established, but in 2008, the Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs was convened. The Working Group is made up of multiple federal departments and agencies, and has worked to address common goals for youth. In the past three decades, Congress has also considered other legislation (the Youth Community Development Block Grant of 1995 and the Younger Americans Act of 2000) to improve the delivery of services to vulnerable youth and provide opportunities to these youth through policies with a “positive youth development” focus.

This report first provides an overview of the youth population and the increasing complexity of transitioning to adulthood for all adolescents. It also provides a separate discussion of the concept of “disconnectedness,” as well as the protective factors youth can develop during childhood and adolescence that can mitigate poor outcomes. Further, the report describes the evolution of federal youth policy, focusing on three time periods, and provides a brief overview of current federal programs targeted at vulnerable youth. (Table A-1 at the end of the report, enumerates the objectives and funding levels of such programs. Note that the table does not enumerate all programs that target, even in small part, vulnerable or disconnected youth.) The report then discusses the challenges of coordinating federal programs for youth, as well as federal legislation and initiatives that promote coordination among federal agencies and support programs with a positive youth development focus.

(6)

Overview

Age of Youth and the Transition to Adulthood

For the purposes of this report, “youth” refers to adolescents and young adults between the ages of 10 and 24. Under this definition, there are approximately 64.1 million youth (or 20% of the population) in the United States.¹ Although traditional definitions of youth include adolescents ages 12 to 18, cultural and economic shifts have protracted the period of adolescence. Children as young as 10 are included because puberty begins at this age for some youth, and experiences in early adolescence often shape enduring patterns of behavior.² Older youth, up to age 24, are in the process of transitioning to adulthood. Many young people in their mid-20s attend school or begin to work, and some live with their parents or other relatives.

The current move from adolescence to adulthood has become longer and more complex, particularly since the postwar period.³ Youth of the 1950s were more likely to follow an orderly path to adulthood. They generally completed their education and/or secured employment (for males), including military service, which was followed by marriage and parenthood in their early 20s. (This was not true for every young person; for example, African Americans and immigrants in certain parts of the country faced barriers to employment.) Unlike their postwar counterparts who had access to plentiful jobs in the industrial sector, youth today must compete in a global, information-driven economy that favors highly skilled, educated workers.⁴ The ability for young people to secure well-paid employment is contingent on higher levels of education. From the 1970s to the 2000s, real wages and hours worked rose most significantly for those with some college or who had a college degree.⁵ Many more youth now receive vocational training or enroll in colleges and universities after leaving high school compared to earlier generations.⁶

During the period of transition, young adults cycle between attending school, living

independently, and staying with their parents. They also use this time to explore career options and relationships with potential long-term partners.⁷ The median age of first marriage has risen

1 U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States, States, Counties, and Puerto Rico Commonwealth and Municipios: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016, 2016 Population Estimates, https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=

PEP_2016_PEPAGESEX&prodType=table.

2 The federal Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs also focuses its efforts on youth ages 10 to 24. See, Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs, Pathways for Youth: Strategic Plan for Federal Collaboration, December 2016, p. 5, https://youth.gov/sites/default/files/IWGYP-Pathways_for_Youth.pdf. (Hereinafter, Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs, Pathways for Youth: Strategic Plan for Federal Collaboration.)

3 Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net: The Transition to Adulthood for Vulnerable Populations.

(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005), pp. 4-6. (Hereinafter, Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net.)

4 Sheldon Danziger and David Ratner, “Labor Market Outcomes and the Transition to Adulthood,” The Future of Children, Transition to Adulthood, vol. 20, no. 1 (Spring 2010), p. 133, https://futureofchildren.princeton.edu/sites/

futureofchildren/files/media/transition_to_adulthood_20_01_fulljournal.pdf.

5 Ibid, pp. 136-138.

6 Maria D. Fitzpatrick and Sarah E. Turner, “Blurring the Boundary: Changes in Collegiate Participation and the Transition to Adulthood,” in The Price of Independence: The Economics of Early Adulthood, Sheldon Danziger and Cecilia Elena Rouse, eds., (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2007), pp. 110-111.

7 Sheldon Danziger and Cecilia Elena Rouse, eds., The Price of Independence: The Economics of Early Adulthood (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2007), pp. 3, 11. (Hereinafter, Sheldon Danziger and Cecilia Elena Rouse, eds., The Price of Independence: The Economics of Early Adulthood.)

(7)

each decade since the 1950s, to 27.4 years for women and 29.5 years for men as of 2016.⁸ The extended transition to adulthood for some youth may delay becoming financially independent, which can create a burden for their families. A study of support to 19- to 22-year-olds, based on data from 2005 through 2009, found that just over 60% of these young adults receive some form of financial assistance from their parents, including help with paying bills (42.2%), tuition assistance (34.7%), providing personal vehicles (23.0%), and paying rent (21.5%). The average value of all assistance to young adult children from 2005 to 2009, reported in 2009 dollars, was

$7,490. Higher income families provided more support to their children. Young adults whose parents were in the top quartile of family income received support ($15,449) six times as large as the assistance ($2,113) provided by parents in the bottom quartile.⁹ Other research shows support provided by parents to their children has increased over time. Among high school graduates ages 19 through 22, both the share receiving any support and the share receiving a high level of support have increased since the early 1980s. While a greater proportion of young adults ages 23 through 28 have increasingly received more support from their parents, the amount of support has not increased. In addition, support for young adults has been concentrated in the period since 2003.¹⁰ Related to these trends, approximately 15% of adults ages 25 to 34 lived with their parents in 2016, and nearly all of these youth had lived with their parents for at least the past year.¹¹

Programs that assist youth making the transition to adulthood also recognize that adolescence is no longer a finite period ending at age 18. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, P.L. 111-148), the health reform law, requires health insurance companies to provide coverage to the children of parents who are enrolled in their health care plans up to their 26^th birthday. Since January 2014, it also has provided a new Medicaid pathway for children who age out of foster care up to their 26^th birthday. Since FY2003, the federal Chafee Foster Care Education and Training Vouchers program has provided vouchers worth up to $5,000 annually per youth who is “aging out” of foster care or was adopted from foster care after 16 years of age.¹² The vouchers are available for the cost of attendance at an institution of higher education, as defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965. Youth receiving a voucher at age 21 may continue to participate in the voucher program until age 23.

Further, the changing concept of the age of adulthood has gained currency among organizations and foundations that support and study youth development projects. The Youth Transition Funders Group is a network of grant makers whose mission is to help all adolescents make the successful transition to adulthood by age 25. Similarly, the Network on Transitions to Adulthood,

8 U.S. Census Bureau, “Historical Time Series, Marital Status (MS-2), Estimated Median Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to the Present,” https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/families/time-series/marital/

ms2.xls.

9 Patrick Wightman, Robert Schoeni, and Keith Robinson, Familial Financial Assistance to Young Adults, National Poverty Center Work Paper Series #12-10, May 2012, http://npc.umich.edu/publications/u/2012-

10%20NPC%20Working%20Paper.pdf.

10 Patrick Wightman et al., Historical Trends in Parental Financial Support of Young Adults, University of Michigan Institute for Research, Population Studies Center, Report 13-801, Ann Arbor, MI, September 2013,

http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr13-801.pdf.

11 Richard Fry, It’s Becoming More Common for Young Adults to Live at Home – and for Longer Stretches, May 5, 2017, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/05/its-becoming-more-common-for-young-adults-to-live-at- home-and-for-longer-stretches/.

12 See CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.

(8)

a consortium of researchers from around the country, was created in 2000 to study the changing nature of early adulthood.¹³

Defining the Vulnerable Youth Population

The majority of young people in the United States grow up healthy and safe in their communities.

Those of primary and secondary school age live with parents who provide for their emotional and economic well-being and they attend schools that prepare them for continuing education or the workforce, and ultimately, self-sufficiency. Just over one-third of young adults today have graduated from a four-year college or university.¹⁴ Nonetheless, some young people do not grow up in a secure environment or with parents that provide a comprehensive system of support.¹⁵ These youth often live in impoverished neighborhoods, where they may be exposed to violence, and come to school unprepared to learn. Their communities and schools often lack resources.

Even youth who have adequate academic and emotional support may experience greater challenges as they transition to adulthood.

There is no universal definition of the terms “vulnerable” or “at-risk” youth,¹⁶ and some believe that these labels should not be used because of their potentially stigmatizing effects.¹⁷ The terms have been used to denote individuals who experience emotional and adjustment problems, are at risk of dropping out, or lack the skills to succeed after graduation.¹⁸ They have also been used to suggest that youth grow up in unstable family or community environments.¹⁹ Researchers, policymakers, and youth advocates, however, might agree to this definition: vulnerable youth have characteristics and experiences that put them at risk of developing problem behaviors and outcomes that have the potential to hurt their community, themselves, or both.²⁰ “At risk” does

13 The Network has published three books on this topic. See Richard A. Settersten Jr., Frank F. Furstenburg Jr., and Rubén Rumbaut, eds., On the Frontier of Adulthood: Theory, Research, and Public Policy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005); Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net; and Sheldon Danziger and Cecilia Elena Rouse, eds., The Price of Independence: The Economics of Early Adulthood.

14 This is based on the percentage of adults ages 25 to 29 who have received a bachelor’s degree or higher in 2015 (defined as having completed four or more years of college). U.S. Census Bureau, “Table A-1: Percent of People 25 Years and Over Who Have Completed High School or College by Race, Hispanic Origin and Sex: Selected Years 1940 to 2016,” https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/educational-attainment/2016/cps-detailed-tables/

histtab-A-02.xlsx.

15 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE), Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth: ACF Youth Demonstration Development Project, OPRE Report 2011-22, June 21, 2011, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/

opre/resource/synthesis-of-research-and-resources-to-support-at-risk-youth. (Hereinafter HHS, ACF, OPRE, Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth.)

16 Ibid.

17 Kristin Anderson Moore, “Defining the Term ‘At Risk,’” Child Trends Research-to-Results Brief, Publication

#2006-12, October 2006. (Hereinafter, Kristin Moore, “Defining the Term ‘At-Risk.’”) In fact, the White House Council for Community Solutions identified at-risk youth as “opportunity youth” because they display positive attributes and do not want to be disconnected from work and school. See, Corporation for National and Community Service, White House Council for Community Solutions, Final Report: Community Solutions for Opportunity Youth, June 2012. (Hereinafter, White House Council for Community Solutions, Final Report: Community Solutions for Opportunity Youth.)

18 J. Jeffries McWhirter et al., At-Risk Youth: A Comprehensive Response. California: Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2004, p.

6. (Hereinafter, J. Jeffries McWhirter, At-Risk Youth.)

19 Kristin Moore, “Defining the Term ‘At-Risk.’”

20 Martha R. Burt, Gary Resnick, and Nancy Matheson, Comprehensive Service Integration Programs for At-Risk Youth, The Urban Institute, 1992, pp. 13-22.

(9)

not necessarily mean a youth has already experienced negative outcomes but it suggests that negative outcomes are more likely. Youth may also experience different levels of risk, to high risk.²¹ Youth may also experience multiple risk factors. Vulnerable youth may also display resiliency that mitigates negative outcomes.

Groups of Vulnerable Youth

Researchers on vulnerable youth have identified multiple groups at risk of experiencing poor outcomes as they enter adulthood.²² These groups include, but are not limited to the following:

 youth emancipating from foster care;

 runaway and homeless youth;

 youth involved in the juvenile justice system;

 immigrant youth and youth with limited English proficiency;

 youth with physical and mental disabilities;

 youth with mental disorders; and

 youth receiving special education.

Some researchers have also classified other groups of vulnerable youth on the basis of risk outcomes: young unmarried mothers, high school dropouts, and disconnected (e.g., not in school nor working) youth.

Among the seven groups listed above, some lack financial assistance and emotional support from their families. Former foster youth, for example, often do not have parents who can provide financial assistance while they attend college or vocational schools. Other vulnerable youth have difficulty securing employment because of their disabilities, mental illness, juvenile justice history, or other challenges. Vulnerable youth who have depended on public systems of support often lose needed assistance at the age of majority.²³ Many will lose health insurance coverage, vocational services, and supplementary income.²⁴ They will also face challenges in accessing adult public systems, where professionals are not always trained to address the special needs of young adults. Regardless of their specific risk factor(s), groups of vulnerable youth share many of the same barriers to successfully transitioning into their 20s.

Even within these groups, the population is highly diverse. For example, among youth with disabilities, individuals experience visual or hearing impairments, emotional disturbances,

congenital heart disease, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, diabetes, cancer, and spina bifida. Youth in these seven groups also represent diverse socioeconomic and racial backgrounds. However, youth of color and the poor tend to be overrepresented in vulnerable populations. This is due, in part, to

21 J. Jeffries McWhirter, At-Risk Youth, pp. 7-9.

22 See, for example, HHS, ACF, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth; Wayne Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net; and Michael Wald and Tia Martinez, Connected by 25: Improving the Life Chances of the Country’s Most Vulnerable 14-24 Year Olds, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Working Paper, November 2003. Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth includes youth who are the focus of programs administered by HHS/ACF, including youth aging out of foster care, runaway and homeless youth, youth receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), teenage parents, and juvenile offenders. On Your Own Without a Net focuses on the seven groups listed above, in addition to youth

reentering the community from the juvenile justice system. “Connected by 25” focuses on four groups: high school dropouts, young unmarried mothers, juvenile justice-involved youth, and foster youth.

23 Wayne G. Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net, p. 10.

24 Ibid., pp. 10-12.

(10)

their exposure to poverty, and crime, racism, and lack of access to systems of care, such as health care and vocational assistance.²⁵

Youth may also be members of multiple vulnerable populations. For instance, former foster youth are particularly at risk of becoming homeless. In recent years, approximately 20,500 to 25,000 youth have “aged out” of foster care.²⁶ Emancipated youth may have inadequate housing

supports.²⁷ Recently emancipated foster youth also tend to be less economically secure than their counterparts in the general youth population because they earn lower wages and are more likely to forego college and vocational training.²⁸ Their economic vulnerability can place them at risk of losing their housing.

Risk Factors

Not all vulnerable youth experience negative outcomes. However, reviews of social science literature have identified multiple factors that can influence whether youth face negative

outcomes in adolescence and as they transition to adulthood.²⁹ Such factors include the following:

 Poverty: Poverty is linked to a number of potential future problems among youth, including chronic health conditions, low educational attainment, and engagement in delinquent behaviors.

 Family Instability: Children who grow up in two-parent families tend to have better health outcomes and more positive behaviors.

 Family Dysfunction: Two types of family dysfunction are particularly detrimental to the future well-being of children: witnessing violence against their mothers and criminal activity among their family members.

 Child Maltreatment: Abuse and neglect by their parents or other caretakers puts children at risk for many negative outcomes, including poor physical and mental health, lower cognitive functioning and educational attainment, and poor social development and behavior.

 Exposure to Violence in the Community: Witnessing violence in a community is linked to several negative outcomes such as depression, aggressive behavior, anxiety, posttraumatic stress, psychological trauma, and antisocial behavior.

 School Resources and Environment: Schools with fewer resources are associated with poor academic outcomes, and schools can create environments with

problematic social issues such as bullying and behavioral problems.

25 J. Jeffries McWhirter, At-Risk Youth, pp. 9, 13, and 14.

26 HHS, ACF, AFCARS Report #24, Preliminary Estimates for FY2016 as of October 20, 2017, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/afcars-report-24.

27 Mark E. Courtney and Darcy Hughes Heuring. “The Transition to Adulthood for Youth “Aging Out” of the Foster Care System” in Osgood et al., eds., On Your Own Without a Net, pp. 27-32.

28 For further information, see CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.

29 This discussion is based on HHS, ACF, OPRE, Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth. The report draws from two reports that synthesize the research literature on risk factors for children: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study, “Major Findings,” https://www.cdc.gov/

violenceprevention/acestudy/about.html; and Institute of Medicine (IOM), Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities, 2009, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?

record_id=12480.

(11)

 Community Resources: Children who live in high-poverty neighborhoods might be less likely than their peers who live in low-poverty neighborhoods to perceive work as a common activity, and therefore less likely to succeed in school.

 Residential Mobility: Children who move frequently may experience negative outcomes, such as lower academic performance, high rates of school dropout, emotional and behavioral problems, and engaging in premarital sex.

 Minority Status: Children of color are more likely to live in high-poverty

neighborhoods and to attend lower-performing schools, compared to white youth.

Further, racial discrimination can hinder job opportunities for youth.

The research literature points out that children are particularly vulnerable if they experience two or more of these risk factors.

Disconnectedness

Youth advocates and researchers have recently focused on vulnerable youth who experience negative outcomes in both employment and educational attainment.³⁰ Generally characterized as disconnected, these youth are not working or attending school. However, there is no uniform definition of this term. On the basis of a CRS review of studies on the population, the definition of disconnected varies, with differences in ages of the youth and the length that youth are not in school or working. The studies count youth as young as age 16 and as old as age 24, with ages in between (i.e., 16 to 19, 18 to 24).³¹ Youth are generally considered disconnected if they were not working or in school at the time they were surveyed, or over a period of time prior to the survey.

Some of the definitions, however, incorporate other characteristics, such as marital status and educational attainment. Further, several studies used definitions that included only

noninstitutionalized youth. This means that these studies do not count youth in prisons, college dorms, mental health facilities, and other institutions.

Positive Youth Development: The Importance of Resiliency and Opportunity

Although vulnerable youth experience more negative outcomes than their counterparts who are not considered to be at risk, some of these youth go on to attend college and/or secure

employment. Advocates for youth argue that vulnerable youth can reach their goals if given adequate opportunities to develop positive behaviors during adolescence. The federal Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs characterizes positive youth development as a process that engages young people in positive pursuits that help them acquire and practice the skills, attitudes, and behaviors that they will need to become effective and successful adults in their work, family, and civic lives. Further, positive youth development emphasizes that youth can be engaged in their communities, schools, organizations, peer groups, and families in a productive and constructive manner.³²

30 CRS Report R40535, Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.

31 Ibid.

32 Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs, Pathways for Youth: Strategic Plan for Federal Collaboration, December 2016.

(12)

What is Youth Development?

Youth development refers to the processes—physical, cognitive, and emotional—that youth undergo during adolescence. The competencies that youth begin to gain during adolescence can assist them as they transition to adulthood. Youth who master competencies across several domains are more likely to achieve desirable outcomes, including educational and professional success, self-confidence, connections to family and the community, and contributions to society.

These areas of competency include the following:

 Cognitive: Knowledge of essential life skills, problem solving skills, academic adeptness;

 Social: Connectedness with others, perceived good relationships with peers, parents, and other adults;

 Physical: Good health habits, good health risk management skills;

 Emotional: Good mental health, including positive self-regard; good coping skills;

 Personal: Sense of personal autonomy and identity, sense of safety, spirituality, planning for the future and future life events, strong moral character;

 Civic: Commitment to community engagement, volunteering, knowledge of how to interface with government systems; and

 Vocational: Knowledge of essential vocational skills, perception of future in terms of jobs or careers.³³

A primary factor that influences how well youth develop these competencies is the interaction among individual characteristics, or traits influenced by genetic inheritance and prenatal environment; the social environment, which encompasses societal conditions, communities, and schools that can serve to reinforce positive behaviors and promote positive outcomes for

vulnerable youth; and the home environment, including discord among parents and monitoring of children by their parents.³⁴

Individual conditions refer to the characteristics of individuals that can influence resilience.

Individual-level characteristics that can promote resilience include social skills, coping strategies, a positive sense of self, and high expectations. Societal conditions—economic conditions, the prevalence of discrimination, and educational institutions—affect the development of youth competencies and connectedness to others. Adolescents who perceive their future in terms of jobs or careers often achieve desirable outcomes. For vulnerable youth, poor economic conditions and fewer opportunities to work can affect how they perceive their future. Youth’s interaction with the community is another variable that shapes their development. Community culture, or the values and beliefs of a particular community, may support the positive development of youth by reinforcing cultural norms that favor academic achievement and professional success.

Communities can play a role in fostering youth development by providing multiple pathways to help youth strengthen their competencies through schools and other institutions. Youth advocates

33 National Research Council, Community Programs to Promote Youth Development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2002, pp. 6-7, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED465844.pdf. See also Youth Transitions Funders Group, Investing to Improve the Well-Being of Vulnerable Youth and Young Adults: Recommendations for Policy and Practice, October 2015, http://www.ytfg.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Investing-in-Well-Being-small.pdf.

34 This discussion is based on HHS, ACF, Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), Understanding Youth Development: Promoting Positive Pathways of Growth, 1997; and HHS, ACF, OPRE, Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk Youth.

(13)

argue that these pathways should involve services and long-term programs that provide

opportunities for youth during the school day and in nonschool hours when youth may be more susceptible to risky behaviors.³⁵ Within schools, the availability of resources for youth and their parents, such as programs that monitor and supervise youth, and quality youth-serving institutions and organizations can buffer youth from negative community cultures. Outside of schools, youth development programs—such as mentoring and leadership programs—emphasize the positive elements of growing up and engage young people in alternatives to counteract negative pressures.

Finally, the family context plays a pivotal role in youth development. Parental oversight of their children and family structure affect how well youth transition to adulthood. Positive adolescent development is facilitated when youth express independence from their parents, yet rely on their parents for emotional support, empathy, and advice. Parenting styles and family structure play important roles in the lives of youth. Parents who discipline in a moderate and caring manner, and provide positive sanctions for prosocial behaviors can assist youth to develop a sense of control over their future. Family structures that promote positive parent-child relationships, even after divorce or times of stress (such as separation or loss of a parent), can provide youth with emotional and other support during adolescence and beyond.

The Youth Development Movement

The belief that all youth have assets has formed the basis of the youth development movement that began in the 1980s in response to youth policies and programs that attempted to curb the specific problems facing youth (e.g., pregnancy, drug use) without necessarily focusing on how to holistically improve outcomes for youth and ease their transition to adulthood. A range of

institutions have promoted this approach through their literature and programming: policy organizations (Forum for Youth Investment and National Network for Youth); national direct service organizations for youth (4-H and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America); public and private research and philanthropic entities (National Research Council, Carnegie Corporation of New York, MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Transitions to Adulthood, Youth Transitions Funders Group); and government sub-agencies with a youth focus (the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services’ Family and Youth Services Bureau and the U.S.

Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention).³⁶ The youth development movement has attempted to shift from an approach to youth that emphasizes problem prevention to one that addressed the types of attitudes, skills, knowledge, and behaviors young people need to develop for adulthood.³⁷

Despite the endorsement of the positive youth development approach by prominent organizations, the movement has faced challenges.³⁸ Youth advocates within the movement point to insufficient

35 Karen Pittman, Merita Irby, and Thaddeus Ferber, Unfinished Business: Further Reflections on a Decade of Promoting Youth Development, The Forum for Youth Investment, 2002, (Hereinafter Karen Pittman, Merita Irby, and Thaddeus Ferber, Unfinished Business.)

36 See for example, Karen Pittman, “Some Things Do Make a Difference and We Can Prove It: Key Take-Aways”

from Finding Out What Matters for Youth: Testing Key Links in a Community Action Framework for Youth Development, The Forum for Youth Investment, April 2003, http://forumfyi.org/files/

Some%20Things%20Do%20Make%20a%20Difference_Comm.pdf. See also, National 4-H Council, The National Conversation on Youth Development in the 21^st Century: Final Report, 2002, https://ia601302.us.archive.org/34/items/

ERIC_ED467902/ERIC_ED467902.pdf; and National Research Council, Community Programs to Promote Youth Development, 2002.

37 Pittman, Irby, and Ferber, Unfinished Business, pp. 20-22.

38 Ibid., pp. 30-31.

(14)

guidance for program planners and policymakers about prioritizing which youth to serve, given the limited resources available to communities for youth programs. They have also criticized the lack of sufficient evaluation of programs and organizations using a positive development

approach. According to these advocates, some youth development efforts have been built on insufficient data about demand for or supply of programs and were started without baseline data on reasonable youth indicators. Further, they argue that youth development messages have, at times, failed to generate excitement among policymakers because they did not convey how positive youth development policy and programs could respond to the challenges young people face and lead to better outcomes for youth and society at large. In turn, the movement has failed to adequately link to local and regional infrastructures that assist with funding, training, and network development.

To address these challenges, youth advocates (the same groups that have raised criticisms about the movement) have proposed a number of recommendations. For example, the Forum for Youth has urged advocates to clarify a youth development message that specifies concrete deliverables and to connect the movement to sustainable public and private resources and other youth

advocacy efforts.³⁹ The recommendations have also called for evaluations of youth programs with a positive youth approach and improved monitoring and assessment of programs.

Since these recommendations were made (over 10 ten years ago), the federal government has increased coordination among federal agencies with youth programs and funded initiatives to assist localities and regions in responding to challenges facing youth. The role of the federal government in assisting vulnerable youth is discussed in the next section.

Evolution of the Federal Role in Assisting Vulnerable Youth

The remainder of this report describes the evolution of federal youth policy and provides an overview of current programs and initiatives that focus on vulnerable youth. Many of these initiatives promote coordination of federal youth programs and positive youth development.

The federal government has not adopted a single overarching federal policy or legislative vehicle that addresses the challenges that young people experience in adolescence or while making the transition to adulthood. Rather, federal youth policy today evolved from multiple programs and initiatives that began in the early 1900s to assist children and youth. From the turn of the 20^th century through the 1950s, youth policy was generally subsumed under a broad framework of child welfare issues. The Children’s Bureau, established in 1912, focused attention on child labor and the protection of children with special needs. The age boundaries of “youth” were not clearly delineated, but on the basis of proposed child labor reform legislation at that time, “child”

referred to those individuals age 16 and under. Also during this period, work and education support programs were created to ease the financial pressures of the Great Depression for older youth (ages 16 to 23), and increasingly, federal attention focused on addressing the growing number of youth classified as delinquent.

The subsequent period, spanning the 1960s and 1970s, was marked by the creation of programs that targeted youth in six policy areas: workforce development and job training, education, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, public health, and national and community service. Finally, from the 1980s until the present, many of these programs have been

39 Ibid., pp. 14-27.

(15)

expanded; others like them have been eliminated. The federal government has also recently adopted strategies to better serve the youth population through targeted legislation and initiatives.

1912-1950s: Children’s Bureau Programs and Workforce Programs

At the turn of the 20^th century, psychologists first formally defined the concept of adolescence.

American psychologist G. Stanley Hall characterized the period between childhood and

adulthood as a time of “storm and stress,” with youth vulnerable to risky behavior, conflict with parents, and perversion.⁴⁰ The well-being of adolescents was emerging as an area of concern during this time, albeit as part of a greater focus on child welfare by states and localities. States began to recognize the distinct legal rights of children, generally defined as age 16 and younger, and to establish laws for protecting children against physical abuse, cruelty, and neglect. Children who were abused or neglected were increasingly removed from their homes and placed in

almshouses and foster homes by the state. Juvenile courts and reform schools, first created in the late 1800s, were also expanding during this period. By 1912, 22 states had passed legislation to establish juvenile courts.⁴¹

The year 1912 also marked the federal government’s initial involvement in matters relating to child welfare with the creation of the Children’s Bureau in the U.S. Department of Labor.⁴² The bureau emerged out of the Progressive Movement, which emphasized that the stresses on family life due to industrial and urban society were having a disproportionately negative effect on children. Though not a Cabinet-level agency, the purpose of the bureau was to investigate and report upon all “matters pertaining to the welfare of children and child life” for the federal government; however, the legislation creating the bureau named for special consideration: “infant mortality, the birth rate, orphanages, juvenile court, desertion, dangerous occupations, accidents and diseases of children, employment, and legislation affecting children in the several States and Territories.”

The concept of a “youth policy” in those early years was virtually nonexistent. However, the bureau’s efforts in combating child labor and investigating juvenile delinquency from 1912 through the early 1950s targeted youth ages 10 to 16. Bureau Chief Julia Lathrop and Progressive Era advocates pushed for laws that would prohibit the employment of children under age 16. The bureau also tracked the rising number of juvenile delinquents in the 1930s and evaluated the causes of delinquency, citing unhappy home conditions and other factors as a predictor of gang activity. In 1955, the bureau established a division on juvenile delinquency prevention.

Perhaps the most well-known policies the Children’s Bureau implemented that affected youth were through the child health and welfare programs established by the Social Security Act (P.L.

40 G. Stanley Hall, “Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion, and Education,” (1904) in John H. Bremner, Tamara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds., Children & Youth in America, Vol. II: 1866-1932, Parts 1-6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971, pp. 81- 85.

41 John H. Bremner, Tamara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds., Children & Youth in America, Vol. II: 1866- 1932, Parts 1-6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 440.

42 The Children’s Bureau was also established within the Department of Commerce, but within one year was

transferred completely to the Department of Labor. The discussion of the Children’s Bureau in this section is based on two publications: (1) HHS, ACF, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau, The Children’s Bureau Legacy: Ensuring the Right to Childhood, no date (published in 2013), pp. 20-21 (Hereinafter HHS, ACF, The Children’s Bureau Legacy: Ensuring the Right to Childhood); and (2) Kriste Lindenmeyer, “A Right to Childhood:”

The U.S. Children’s Bureau and Child Welfare, 1912-46 (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1997). (Hereinafter Kriste Lindenmeyer, A Right to Childhood.)

(16)

74-231) of 1935. As originally enacted, the law authorized indefinite annual funding of $1.5 million for states to establish, extend, and strengthen public child welfare services in

“predominately rural” or “special needs” areas. For purposes of this program (now at Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social Security Act), these were described as services “for the protection and care of homeless, dependent, and neglected children, and children in danger of becoming delinquent.”⁴³ The Aid to Dependent Children Program (now Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant) was also created under the act to provide financial assistance to impoverished children. “Dependent” children were defined as children under age 16 who had been deprived of parental support or care due to a parent’s death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity, and was living with a relative. Amendments to the program extended the age of children to 18.⁴⁴

Separately in the 1930s, the federal government addressed youth poverty triggered by the Great Depression. The Federal Transient Relief Act of 1933 established a Transient Division within the Federal Transient Relief Administration to provide relief services through state grants. Also in 1933, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) opened camps and shelters for more than 1 million low-income older youth. Two years later, in 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt created the National Youth Administration (NYA) by executive order to open employment bureaus and provide cash assistance to poor college and high school students. The Transient Division was disbanded shortly thereafter.

From 1936 to 1940, legislation was proposed to provide for comprehensive educational and vocational support for older youth. As introduced in 1938, the American Youth Act (S. 1463), if passed, would have established a federal National Youth Administration to administer a system of public-works projects that would employ young persons who were not employed or full-time students. The act would have also provided unemployed youth with vocational advisors to assist them in securing apprentice training. Further, young people enrolled in school and unable to continue their studies without financial support would have been eligible to receive financial assistance to pay school fees and school materials, and personal expenses.⁴⁵ The act, however, was never brought to a full vote by the House or Senate. The Roosevelt Administration raised concerns in hearings on the bill that it was too expensive and would have provided some of the same services already administered through the CCC and NYA.⁴⁶ (The two programs were eliminated in the early 1940s.)

By the late 1940s, the Children’s Bureau no longer had jurisdiction to address “all matters”

concerning children and youth because of federal government reorganizations that prioritized agency function over a particular constituency (e.g., children, poor families, etc.). The bureau was moved in 1949 from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to the Federal Security Agency (FSA), and child health policy issues were transferred to the Public Health Service. The bureau’s

philosophy of the “whole child” diminished further when the FSA was moved to the newly

43 In 1962 (P.L. 87-543), child welfare services were formally defined under Title IV-B as “public social services which supplement, or substitute for parental care and supervision for the purpose of (1) remedying or assisting in the solution of problems which may result in, the neglect, abuse, exploitation, or delinquency of children, (2) protecting and caring for homeless, dependent, or neglected children, and (3) protecting and promoting the welfare of children, including the strengthening of their own homes where possible or, where needed, the provision of adequate care of children away from their homes in foster family homes or day-care or other child-care facilities.”

44 Kriste Lindenmeyer, A Right to Childhood, p. 193.

45 John H. Bremner, Tamara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, eds., Children & Youth in America, Vol. III: 1933- 1973, Parts 1-4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971, pp. 91-96.

46 Ibid., pp. 99-104.

(17)

organized Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) in 1953, which was renamed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 1979.

1960s-1970s: War on Poverty Initiatives and Expansion of Programs

The 1960s and 1970s marked a period of federal efforts to assist poor and disadvantaged children and their families. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty initiatives and subsequent social legislation established youth-targeted programs in the areas of workforce development and job training, education, delinquency prevention, social services, and health. The major legislation during this period included the following:

 Economic Opportunity Act (EOA) of 1964 (P.L. 88-452): As the centerpiece of the War on Poverty, the EOA established the Office of Economic Opportunity.

The office administered programs to promote the well-being of poor youth and other low-income individuals, including Job Corps, Upward Bound, Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), Head Start, and Neighborhood Youth Corps, among others. The mission of the Job Corps was (and still is) to promote the vocational and educational opportunities of older, low-income youth. Similarly, Upward Bound was created to assist disadvantaged high school students who went on to attend college.

 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (P.L. 89-10): The purpose of the ESEA was to provide federal funding to low-income schools.

Amendments to the act in 1966 (P.L 89-750) created the Migrant Education Program and Migrant High School Equivalency Program to assist states in providing education to children of migrant workers.

 Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 (P.L. 89-329): The HEA increased federal funding to universities and created scholarships and low interest loans for students. The act also created the Talent Search Program to identify older, low- income youth with potential for postsecondary education. The act was amended in 1968 (P.L. 90-575) to include two programs: Student Support Services and Upward Bound (which was transferred from the Office of Economic Opportunity to the Office of Education, and later to the U.S. Department of Education).

Student Support Services was created to improve disadvantaged (defined as disabled, low-income, or first in their family to attend college) college students’

retention and graduation rates.

 Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-378): The legislation

permanently established the Youth Conservation Pilot Program to employ youth of all backgrounds to perform work on federal lands.

 Comprehensive Employment and Training Activities Act (CETA) of 1973 (P.L.

93-203): The program established federal funding for the Youth Employment and Training Program and the Summer Youth Employment Program. The programs financed employment training activities and on-the-job training.

 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 (P.L. 93-415):

The act extended federal support to states and local governments for

rehabilitative and preventive juvenile justice delinquency projects, as established under the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act (P.L. 90-445). The major provisions of the JJDPA funded preventive programs in local communities outside of the juvenile justice system. The act’s Title III established the Runaway Youth Program to provide temporary shelter, counseling, and after-care services

(18)

to runaway youth and their families. Congress later amended (P.L. 95-115) Title III to include homeless youth (and the law is now known as the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act).

 Education for All Handicapped Children of 1975 (P.L. 94-142): The act required all public schools accepting federal funds to provide equal access to education for children with physical and mental disabilities. Public schools were also required to create an educational plan for these students, with parental input, that would emulate as closely as possible the educational experiences of able-bodied children. (This legislation is now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.)

White House Conferences on Children and Youth: 1960s and 1970s

Since 1909, the executive branch has organized a White House Conference on Children (and youth, in later decades). The White House conferences of 1960 and 1971 focused on efforts to promote opportunities for youth. The recommendations from the 1960 conference’s forum on adolescents discussed the need for community agencies to assist parents in addressing the concerns of youth, as well as improved social services to adolescents and young adults.⁴⁷ The recommendations called for the federal government to establish a unit devoted to youth and to support public and private research regarding the issues facing this population, including their employment, education, military service, marriage, mobility, and community involvement. The 1971 conference had a broader focus on issues that were important to youth at the time.

Recommendations from the conference included a suspension of the draft, less punitive measures for drug possession, and income guarantees for poor families.⁴⁸

Family and Youth Services Bureau

In the 1960s, the Children’s Bureau began focusing more attention on the needs of adolescents.

For example, a Youth Services Unit was established in 1966 and focused on assisting youth in the transition to adulthood by “identifying the problems and needs of adolescents and young adults in today’s changing society, exploring existing resources for meeting these needs, and stimulating new approaches for dealing with them.” An early focus of the unit was a program on the needs of young parents ages 14 to 19.⁴⁹

The separate Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) was created outside of the Children’s Bureau (in what was then the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW)) in 1970 to provide leadership on youth issues in the federal government.⁵⁰ At that time, it was held that young people were placed inappropriately in the juvenile justice system, while others were not receiving needed social services. Known then as the Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention Administration, the sub-agency proposed a new service delivery strategy (similar to the contemporary positive youth development approach) that emphasized youth’s competence, usefulness, and belonging.⁵¹ The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of

47 Executive Office of the President, Conference Proceedings from the Golden Anniversary White House Conference on Children and Youth, March 27-April 2, 1960 (Washington: GPO, 1960), p. 212.

48 Executive Office of the President, Conference Proceedings from the White House Conference on Youth, 1971.

Washington: GPO, 1971.

49 HHS, ACF, The Children’s Bureau Legacy: Ensuring the Right to Childhood, pp. 121-122.

50 This discussion is based on correspondence with HHS, ACF, April 2007.

51 American Youth Policy Forum, A Youth Development Approach to Services for Young People: The Work of the (continued...)

(19)

1974 emphasized that youth committing status offenses (behaviors considered offenses only if carried out by a juvenile, such as truancy or running away) were more in need of care and guidance than they were of punishment. Passage of the JJDPA laid the foundation for much of FYSB’s work today with runaway and homeless youth and other vulnerable youth groups.

1980s-Present: Current Youth Programs

Current federal youth policy has resulted from the piecemeal creation of programs across several areas of social policy. Many of the youth-focused programs that trace their history to the War on Poverty continue today, and several new programs, spread across several agencies, have been created. (While the Family and Youth Services Bureau, FYSB, was created to provide leadership on youth issues, it administers a small number of youth programs, including the Runaway and Homeless Youth program and the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program, among others.) Federal youth policy today also includes recent initiatives to promote positive youth development and increase coordination between federal agencies that administer youth-focused programs. Table A- 1 in the Appendix provides a description of over 50 major federal programs for youth in six policy areas discussed previously—job training and workforce development, education, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, public health, and national and community service. The table includes the programs’ authorizing legislation and U.S. code section;

objectives; FY2006 through FY2015 funding levels; agency with jurisdiction; and targeted at-risk youth population. The programs were selected based upon their objectives to serve vulnerable youth primarily between the ages of 10 to 24, or to research this population.

The CRS contributors to Table A-1, their contact information, and CRS reports on some of the programs are listed in Table A-2.

As enacted, the programs are intended to provide vulnerable youth with the opportunities to develop skills and abilities that will assist them in adolescence and during the transition to adulthood. Congress has allocated funding to these programs for a number of services and

activities, including conflict resolution; counseling; crime/violence prevention; gang intervention;

job training assistance; mentoring; parental/family intervention; planning and program development; and research and evaluation. The programs differ in size, scope, and funding authorization levels and type (mandatory vs. discretionary).

The list is not exhaustive and may omit programs that serve the targeted youth population. Two major block grant programs—the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (TANF) and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)—are not included because they do not provide dedicated funding for youth activities. However, states can choose to use TANF and SSBG funds for such purposes. TANF law permits states to use block grant funds to provide services to recipient families and other “needy” families (defined by the state) so long as the services are expected to help lead to independence from government services or enable needy families to care for children at home.⁵² States may also provide services to nonneedy families if they are directed at the goals of preventing and reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies or encouraging the formation of two- parent families. SSBG provides funding to assist states to provide a range of social services to adults and children, and each state determines what services are provided and who is eligible.

Youth-focused categories of services that can be funded through the SSBG include education and

(...continued)

Family and Youth Services Bureau, Forum Brief, June 11, 1999.

52 For further information, see CRS Report RL32760, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, by Gene Falk.

(20)

training services to improve knowledge or daily living skills and to enhance cultural

opportunities; foster care services for children and older youth; independent and transitional living services; pregnancy and parenting services for young parents; and special services for youth involved in or at risk of involvement with criminal activity.⁵³

The following sections briefly discuss selected programs under six policy areas—job training and workforce development, education, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, public health, and national and community service

Job Training and Workforce Development⁵⁴

The federal government funds four major job training and workforce development programs for youth: Job Corps, Youth Activities, YouthBuild, and Youth Conservation Corps. These programs (except for the Youth Conservation Corps) are administered by the Department of Labor (DOL) and target low-income youth ages 14 (or 16) to 24 who require additional assistance in meeting their vocational goals.

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA, P.L. 113-128) authorizes the DOL programs through FY2020. The Youth Activities programs fund employment training and

academic support services for both in-school youth ages 14 to 21 and out-of-school youth ages 16 to 24. In-school youth includes those who are attending school, low-income, and have a specified barrier to employment. Out-of-school youth includes those who meet certain criteria such as being a high school dropout or being low-income. No less than 75% of funds may be used to serve out-of-school youth.

Job Corps has centers in all 50 states and Puerto Rico where youth live and receive training.

Program training consists of career preparation, development, and transition; academic initiatives;

and character building.

Created by the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1992 (P.L. 101-625) and currently authorized under WIOA, YouthBuild has many of the same educational and vocational objectives as those established under the Job Corps and Youth Activities programs. YouthBuild participants ages 16 to 24 work toward their GED or high school diploma while learning job skills by building affordable housing. Finally, the Youth Conservation Corps, established in 1970 by the Youth Conservation Corps Act (P.L. 91-378) and administered by the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, targets youth ages 15 to 18 of all backgrounds to work on projects that conserve natural resources.

Education

Most federal education programs for vulnerable youth are authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965,

administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The ESEA provides the primary source of federal funds to K-12 education programs, with the largest program being Title I-A. The purpose of the Title I-A program, from its original enactment in 1965 to the present, is, in part, to provide supplementary educational and related services to educationally disadvantaged children who attend schools serving relatively low-income areas. The Higher Education Act is the source

53 For further information, see CRS Report 94-953, Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding, by Karen E. Lynch.

54 For additional information, see CRS Report R40929, Vulnerable Youth: Employment and Job Training Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.

Vulnerable Youth: Background and Policies